quote]Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" began last month as the brainchild of a Seattle-based cartoonist named Molly Norris, who was appalled by Comedy Central's decision to censor an episode of "South Park" that depicted Muhammad in a bear costume.

As a way to protest the network's decision -- which came after an Islamic extremist website warned of retaliation against the show's creators, Matt Stone and Trey Parker -- Norris created a poster with likenesses of Muhammad as a domino, a teacup and a box of pasta.

She declared May 20 "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day!" -- and her efforts quickly went viral, spawning several Facebook pages with thousands of followers dedicated to the event. [/quote]

While I am generally against dickish behavior, I think that freedom of speech needs to triumph in this case. I was a big supporter of Maplethorp and the right to create anti-christian art, so I must be in favor of the right to draw and present Mohammad.

I hope it is a big success and we can finally break this taboo and not let a religion dictated to the rest of us what we can and can't say/think/express.

I disagree with what you're saying, but I will die for your right to say it

At this sort of sentiment in general, rather than just one poster:

The point of freedom of speech is to ensure that people of a democratic nation can be critical of their leaders without fear of retaliation. It's a big-picture sort of concept, not just a whiney "I should be able to say whatever I please BWAAAH". When the only possible outcome of your expression is offense, harping on about about your freedom to do it rather misses the point of that freedom, in my opinion.

Proverbs 9:7-8 wrote:Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return. Anyone who corrects the wicked will get hurt. So don't bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you.

I disagree with what you're saying, but I will die for your right to say it

At this sort of sentiment in general, rather than just one poster:

The point of freedom of speech is to ensure that people of a democratic nation can be critical of their leaders without fear of retaliation. It's a big-picture sort of concept, not just a whiney "I should be able to say whatever I please BWAAAH". When the only possible outcome of your expression is offense, harping on about about your freedom to do it rather misses the point of that freedom, in my opinion.

Actually, not just their leaders, but also critical of one another, critical of major institutions, critical of social mores and norms, critical of religion, critical of philosophy, critical of the arts, critical of public policy of any kind, critical of public employees, critical of private business and interests, critical of ideas in general and critical of the existence of reality.

These are all crucial targets of free-speech, without which we are entirely and abjectly unfree. If we are unfree to criticise religion, then we are back in the 1600s, where the Dutch or English could arrest you for doubting the Trinity. We are back in Rome, where questioning the Pope was a felony. We are back in Arabia, where doubting the truthfulness or sanity of Muhammed was a crime. We are back in Athens, where Socrates was executed for questioning the sacred and the glorified.

We should not allow religious institutions to exempt themselves from criticism, by any means. Not by law, of course, but also not by intimidation or social pressure. Criticism is a public duty, as much as it is a right. And it becomes doubly a duty when someone tries to limit this freedom.

I never proposed anyone shouldn't be allowed to express their freedom; simply that only because you can is not to say you have to. I interpret the situation differently from you; "We should not allow religious institutions to exempt themselves from criticism" as opposed to "religious institutions would really rather be exempt from ridicule, even if under the guise of free speech".

Proverbs 9:7-8 wrote:Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return. Anyone who corrects the wicked will get hurt. So don't bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you.

If i put a picture up of Ronald McDonald and just post a caption that he is the prophet Mohammad Is that still offensive? Even though clearly it is not Mohammad?

The point is that the islamic extremists who consider the depiction of their prophet by non-muslims to be offensive are missing the point - that point being that Islam is about the reverence of Allah, not the prophet, and that if muslims started putting Mohammed places it could confuse that.

There is zero chance that anyone would worship Ronald McDonald as Mohammed. Unless you're making a statement that the Islamic religion was delivered to muslims by a clown (and depending on how you do it, that might be a reasonable message to take from such a picture), no sane, intelligent muslim would be offended.

And that's the point - for everyone to draw a depiction of Mohammed that only idiots will hate.

Edit:

Weeks wrote:EDIT: Not that I'm in favor of any side. I think it should be ok to do this within the law, but it's not ok to offend people just because you can.

I'll go into a bit more depth into the intent of the day.

Basically, some muslim extremists are making death threats and such to non-muslims who depict Mohammed.

The idea is for so many people to personally depict mohammed that muslim extremists can no longer make credible threats against each and every one of them.

This is not offending people just because we can. This is offending people out of solidarity against threats to kill them.

So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

I am very much for sending a strong, unique, unified message to violent extreemists who are very much in the wrong in trying to censor people, especially with violence. This is an important thing to do.

However, my concern is that the day is giving a platform for more than just people speaking out against extreemists but gives people a way to further "other" and already "othered" group. Immagine if you will that an equally fundamental and violent Christian organization made death threats over a similar situation. Would there still be the same sort of backlash? I'm not certain. I would hope so, but I can't convince myself there would be. I do think the key difference would be that the focus would be on the extreemists and not the religion itself.

I'm not saying that's a reason not to hold this "protest" but I'm not certain enough in my convictions that it is a good thing that will not be doing harm to people along the way in the form of increasing the "otherness" of Muslims in the US.

I think the underlying problem with this affair has more to do with proportionality than free speech. On one hand, there's the fact that people who belong to a religious group find a specific picture offensive and argue that others should never draw the picture in question in order to respect them. On the other hand. there's the fact that a few of them believe that violence is the appropriate response to drawing such pictures. It's the latter that troubles me way more than the former.

While "Draw Mohammad Day" does show that people won't let these threats terrorise them (which is important too, don't get me wrong), they do nothing to let the extremists know that threats of violence is not an acceptable civilised response to offence. Not only is this thing useless to discourage them, it aggravates them further.

So, I kinda see the point but I'm fairly certain it isn't addressing the root cause of the problem.

Praised be the nightmare, which reveals to us that we have the power to create hell.

simdude wrote:I'm not saying that's a reason not to hold this "protest" but I'm not certain enough in my convictions that it is a good thing that will not be doing harm to people along the way in the form of increasing the "otherness" of Muslims in the US.

That's a good point - I think we can work to fight that just by calling out if a picture of mohammed is okay in and of itself or not.

For instance, Maduyn's picture. That's... a pretty evil picture of Ronald McDonald to pick, there. The idea is that an innocuous picture of Mohammed would be offensive for no reason. A picture of something evil that says "this is mohammed!" rather implies that you're saying mohammed is evil - in this case, evil Ronald McDonald.

So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

Yep. Many of the most effective Enlightenment critics were the irreverent ones. I'm thinking now of Voltaire (esp. with Candide) and Denis Diderot, the Atheist Darling, (esp. with Rameau's Nephew and D'Alembert's Dream) Rameau's Nephew, in particular, is hillarious and a very easy read. Mandeville's Fable of the bees was also pretty good. And who can forget Rabelais's Gargantua.

Let's not also forget the power of absurdist and semi-absurdist theatre in undermining the Communist ethos in Czechloslovakia and other Communist states, from the 1960s through the 1980s.

This is the sort of thing that works, as far as criticism goes. It's taken as "offensive" because it desanctifies its targets, exposing them as sordid or ridiculous. It allows communication of ideas not well expressed through simple argumentative prose, because such prose continues to legitimise the target to ridicule.

What's ultimately offensive to such people is the notion that there are those who consider their worldview illegitimate. I am always wary of such people. In their heart of hearts, they believe themselves to be the world's natural masters.

It also worked because it came from within the cultures that its deriding, spoke their language, and understood the subtleties. Crappy photoshops of muhammad with a bomb in his turban do none of those.

I am particularly tickled by the many pictures of protests against "draw muhammad day" in which the protesters are holding signs with stuff like "death to your freedom of speech" and the like. As they exercise their freedom of speech.

jestingrabbit wrote:It also worked because it came from within the cultures that its deriding, spoke their language, and understood the subtleties. Crappy photoshops of muhammad with a bomb in his turban do none of those.

Some Enlightenment stuff did boil down to that, just for christianity, though.

So, I like talking. So if you want to talk about something with me, feel free to send me a PM.

Do non-fundamentalist muslims get offended by depictions of Mohammed as well as the fundies?

While I wholly support giving the finger to violent extremists, it seems like this would have would have a lot of collateral damage - plenty of non-violent muslims are sure to be offended, even non-fundies would likely find "suicide bomber Mohammed" and "evil Ronald McDonald Mohammed" in bad taste.

Crius wrote:Do non-fundamentalist muslims get offended by depictions of Mohammed as well as the fundies?

While I wholly support giving the finger to violent extremists, it seems like this would have would have a lot of collateral damage - plenty of non-violent muslims are sure to be offended, even non-fundies would likely find "suicide bomber Mohammed" and "evil Ronald McDonald Mohammed" in bad taste.

Yes.

Most of the content of this thread is in extremely poor taste, as it comes across as being offensive solely for the sake of being offensive. Plus, it furthers and encourages the "othering" of Muslims in the US and elsewhere, since at its core the message is "oh look how silly these people are being offended by imagery".

That's the only comment I'll make regarding the content of this thread.

Finally, there's an image of Mohammed carved in the Supreme Court, along with other famous lawgivers (Moses, Hammurabi, King John, Augustus Caesar, etc.). There's some reticence about that from most US Muslims who're aware of it, but given that it's a well-intentioned sculpture, you don't see the same kind of revulsion as more recent depictions. The chief problem has been that most recent depictions of the Prophet by non-Muslims that have gained fame/notoriety have been intentionally offensive. KF

Indon wrote:The idea is for so many people to personally depict mohammed that muslim extremists can no longer make credible threats against each and every one of them.

This is not offending people just because we can. This is offending people out of solidarity against threats to kill them.

Umm, ok, but not all Muslims made death threats, yet many might be offended by these actions, as Crius and others said. Also I don't see how making more people do this will reduce the threat...if anything, doesn't this give them more of a reason to hate us?

Kewangji wrote:I say ... Don't do the maths. Just ignore it. Throw your computer out a window and live a free life.

Enlightenment critics were intelligent and satirical. Comparing this event to that is farcical. A few may have noble intentions but for the most part, this is just engaging in offensiveness for its own sake.

simdude wrote:I'm not saying that's a reason not to hold this "protest" but I'm not certain enough in my convictions that it is a good thing that will not be doing harm to people along the way in the form of increasing the "otherness" of Muslims in the US.

That's a good point - I think we can work to fight that just by calling out if a picture of mohammed is okay in and of itself or not.

For instance, Maduyn's picture. That's... a pretty evil picture of Ronald McDonald to pick, there. The idea is that an innocuous picture of Mohammed would be offensive for no reason. A picture of something evil that says "this is mohammed!" rather implies that you're saying mohammed is evil - in this case, evil Ronald McDonald.

I did an evil Ronald cause you said the point of not depicting him was so that he would not be worshiped instead of Allah/god.So the idea is that it would be evil of said Mohammad to want to be worshiped.I was just trying to do as you said

Indon wrote:"And that's the point - for everyone to draw a depiction of Mohammed that only idiots will hate."

I guess i failed then.

I was once asked why i am a pacifist.I simply said "Because I have finally understood what it is to die"

I have to agree with crius and the others. There is fine line between protesting your freedom of speech and just doing stuff that offends people. If you are trying to make a point by drawing a respectable depiction of Mohammed just to make a point about free speech, I'll support that. If you are trying to make a comment about how Muhammad isn't supposed to be the focal point of the worship, then do that. But if you're just doing it to be offensive, just doing it to say "hur, hur, I is an invincible member of the civilized western world and i will use offensive stereotypes to show barbaric muslims the error of their ways" (and even if you have good intention that often is kinda what you're doing) then I will let you do it, but be sure I will berate you for it until it crawls back to it's cave.

The 62-foot tall statue of Jesus constructed out of styrofoam, wood and fiberglass resin caught on fire after the right hand of the statue was struck by lightning.

The tourist materials for the frieze at the Supreme Court apparently state the figurebears no resemblance to Muhammad. I understand and support a government entity taking great pains so as not to offend any of the citizens it represents, but individuals in a free society cannot be under the same restrictions.

I don't have Facebook account to post this to, but I did draw a stick figure Mohammed in a bear suit when the South Park episode aired. Spoilered, as in the South Park thread, so no Muslim inadvertently looks at it.

Spoiler:

The inclusion of his child bride isn't meant to be a criticism, I just needed an aspect of his life that I could actually draw, and a little pink bow is about the limit of my abilities. I don't see a problem with the marriage itself, since marrying age was much lower in his time, and it was common for marriages to take place primarily as a way to strengthen bonds between two communities, which a prophet would have to do. Plus, he had parental consent, and if that was good enough for Ted Nugent, it's good enough for Mohammed. The fact that he married the girl and made an honest woman tween out of her makes him a far better moral example than those sluttly, slutty priests. One of those sick bastards appears to have molested around 200 deaf boys which is not only horrifying, but the weirdest damn fetish I've ever heard of.

I disagree with what you're saying, but I will die for your right to say it

At this sort of sentiment in general, rather than just one poster:

The point of freedom of speech is to ensure that people of a democratic nation can be critical of their leaders without fear of retaliation. It's a big-picture sort of concept, not just a whiney "I should be able to say whatever I please BWAAAH". When the only possible outcome of your expression is offense, harping on about about your freedom to do it rather misses the point of that freedom, in my opinion.

Actually, not just their leaders, but also critical of one another, critical of major institutions, critical of social mores and norms, critical of religion, critical of philosophy, critical of the arts, critical of public policy of any kind, critical of public employees, critical of private business and interests, critical of ideas in general and critical of the existence of reality.

These are all crucial targets of free-speech, without which we are entirely and abjectly unfree. If we are unfree to criticise religion, then we are back in the 1600s, where the Dutch or English could arrest you for doubting the Trinity. We are back in Rome, where questioning the Pope was a felony. We are back in Arabia, where doubting the truthfulness or sanity of Muhammed was a crime. We are back in Athens, where Socrates was executed for questioning the sacred and the glorified.

We should not allow religious institutions to exempt themselves from criticism, by any means. Not by law, of course, but also not by intimidation or social pressure. Criticism is a public duty, as much as it is a right. And it becomes doubly a duty when someone tries to limit this freedom.

Drawing a picture for the expressed intent of offending someone isn't criticism, its arseholism.

Dark Avorian wrote:Well, to be honest, Facebook is a company owned social networking site so saying "OH we haz teh free speeeech" is wrong, it's their site, they can censor you if they damn well want to.

Well then, I guess it's a good thing he didn't say anything even remotely suggestive of that.

Spoiler:

LE4dGOLEM wrote:Now you know the difference between funny and sad.

Ubik wrote:But I'm too fond of the penis to let it go.

gmalivuk wrote:If you didn't want people to 'mis'understand you, then you probably should have tried saying something less stupid.

Need? No. But to be wilfully offensive without a reason is a bit of a dick move.

The reason is that it was the drawing of Mohammed in particular that elicited so many death threats and attempts at suppression - thus the participants consider the making of these drawings to be a defiant statement in support of free speech. It needs to be viewed in the context of the Jyllands Posten and South Park controversies, which raised the question of whether free speech will be limited by the threat of extralegal retaliation.

And remember, my friends, future events such as these will affect you in the future.

True. Which is why I started in this thread in general terms rather than this specific incident, but I have blurred the two a bit since. I do see a lot of the points being made but I fear a lot of participants will still see this as "lol religion is for idiots now let's try and offend them because it's funny", missing the intent of the creators. Doesn't invalidate the concerns that have been mentioned, though.

Proverbs 9:7-8 wrote:Anyone who rebukes a mocker will get an insult in return. Anyone who corrects the wicked will get hurt. So don't bother correcting mockers; they will only hate you.

I still find it hard to believe that drawing Muhammad will ultimately influence either the Extremists who'll continue to make threats over this sort of thing, or the companies who'll "protect" their employees with censorship. Ultimately the only outcome I see days like this having are marginalizing and offending moderate/liberal Muslims and continuing to other their culture.

Further, I guarantee you a whole fuck lot of people who drew Muhammad yesterday did it for no reason other than to be a cunt to Muslims. Which doesn't really help this situation out all that much.